de Bruijn

de bruijn as summarization of eval/zipper context

Weirdo maude mixed de bruijn and named. Structured identifiers 'x', 1 or both a name and de bruijn. You only need to lift when you cross a name clash.

de bruin has some tricky points

Locally Nameless

Probably the canonical technique.

Abstract Binding Trees Neel krishnwaswami

ABT are first order theory?


Practical Foundationso f programming languages


barendregt convention - bound variables are uniquely named. The rapier.

The rapier The Foil: Capture-Avoiding Substitution With No Sharp Edges

Named rep. Maintain overapproximation of possible variables in scope, can be aware of possible clashes. YOu traverse introductions as you go into terms. ordinary stringy substituion done right possibly



PointFree/ Combinator

kiselyov lambda to SKI semantically


Explicit fresh and swap things.

alphaprolog - see also note on prolog alphakanren mlts freshml constructive representation of nominal sets in agda ed kmett. permutations as trees a trie of permuations. yorgey foner What’s the Difference? A Functional Pearl on Subtracting Bijections

See also note on automata for nominal automata.

Nominal logic, a first order theory of names and binding - pitts 2003

Scope Graphs


Map -style. This one is new to me. Conor Mcbride’s Everybody’s got the be somewhere mentions this. At every lambda, you hold a map of where those variables end up going. This leads to a lot of duplication of structure, but it makes sense. Even de Bruijn indices are a peculiar indirection.

Hash cons modulo alpha

Resources Stephanie Weirich - How to Implement the Lambda Calculus, Quickly

See macros: set of scopes.

nbe in java 19 A better blog post on bindings forms in agda than i could write. Jesper Cockx


Yes so, Semantic of de bruijn z really is a projection function from a tuple s is a reduction function ignoring They really use polymorphism to achieve what they need here. i + l = n levels plus indices = number of binders. I can be wokring in Fock space for homogenous operators. Simon here shows a homogenous list based semantics.


What do we do with binders?

Do Just dumbass names

<code>data Lambo = Var String | Lam String Lambo | App lambo Lambo

-- nope i fucked this up. lordy
-- You need to alpha rename if x contains s' as a free var
subst (Lam s' b) s x | s == s' = (Lam s' b)
                     | otherwise = Lam s' (subst b s x)
subst (Var s') s x | s == s' = x
                   | otherwise = Var s'
subst (App f x) s x = App (subst f s x) (subst f s x) 

but then we want to be lazy about substituions.

eval :: Lambo -> Lambo
eval (App f x) = let x' = eval x in 
eval (App (Lam s b) x) = eval (subst b s x)
eval (App f x) | reducible f = let f' = eval f in eval f' x -- if we also let x' = eval x  it is cbv
               | otherwise = (App f x) 
eval x = x</code>

Direct Substitution

Environment passing

Well typed de bruijn.

Bird and Patterson, Altenkirch and Reus. Look at Eisenberg’s Stitch. and Idris tutorial.

Chris mentioned nominal forms in isabelle. I don’t know what this is

Locally nameless. Separate free and bound variables. Conor Mcbride and Charuand paper

Point-free style. Does my point-free guide hold some stuff about binding forms?

I had some notes I was doing for indexful differentiation. Tensor expressions. It was an interesting exercise

Differentiation is syntactic, not semantic. That’s why is sucks so hard in thermo

Differential is a binding form itself. See a comment in Functional Differential geometry and in Plotkin’s talk.


In locally nameless we don’t have to shift on the term we’re substituting in since the free variables in the term have names.